Neon Laboratories Limited Versus Medical Technologies Limited And Others

Parties

The Respondent-Plaintiffs are indulged in the manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products and became the owner of the trademark ‘PROFOL’ in the year 2000 after amalgamating with the predecessor-in-title, Hematal Biologicals Ltd. or Core Health Care Ltd. who had applied for registration of the trademark ‘PROFOL’ in the year 1998 and received the registration of the trademark in the same year.

The Appellant-Defendants are the owners of the trademark ‘ROFOL’. They applied for registration of their trademark on 19 October, 1992 and received the registration of the same on 14 September, 2001.

Brief Facts

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Respondent-Plaintiffs became the owner of the trademark ‘PROFOL’ upon amalgamation with their predecessor-in-title, Hematal Biologicals Ltd. or Core Health Care Ltd. in the year 2000.

Their predecessor-in-title invented the trademark ‘PROFOL’ in the year 1998.

Subsequent to the amalgamation with the predecessor-in-title, the Respondent-Plaintiffs applied for registration of the trademark ‘PROFOL’ in the year 2000 and have since been using the trademark.

On the other hand, the Appellant-Defendants received the registration of their trademark ‘ROFOL’ in the year 2001. However, they contend that their application for registration dates as far back as 1992.

The Appellant-Defendants did not start marketing their products under the trademark ‘ROFOL’ until 2004.

Upon learning that the Appellant-Defendants have been placing their products in the market under their trademark ‘ROFOL’, the Respondent-Plaintiffs filed a suit on 17 July, 2005 asserting that the trademark ‘ROFOL’ is deceptively similar to their trademark ‘PROFOL’.

Issues

Whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the Respondent-Plaintiffs?

Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Respondent-Plaintiffs?

Whether the Respondent-Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss or damage if an injunction is not granted?

Applicable Rules

Section 34 of the Trademarks Act, 1999;

Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999;

Arguments on behalf of Appellant-Defendants:

The Appellant-Defendants argue that they had filed the application for registration of their trademark on 19.10.1992 long before the Respondent-Plaintiffs had any presence in the market.

Arguments on behalf of Respondent-Plaintiffs:

The Respondent-Plaintiffs argue that their user commenced prior to that of the Appellant-Defendants as their predecessor-in-title initiated the use of the trademark ‘PROFOL’ in the year 1998 whereas the user of the Appellant-Defendants’ trademark commenced from 16 October, 2004 onwards.

Ratio

The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the user of the Appellant-Defendants remained dormant for 12 years. Meanwhile, the Respondent-Plaintiffs got their trademark ‘PROFOL’ registered, commenced the production and marketing of products under their trademark ‘PROFOL’ and built goodwill in the market.

The Apex Court placed reliance on Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 which postulates that a registered trademark may be taken off the register in case there is no bona fide use of the trademark for a continuous period of 5 years and 3 months from the date on which the trademark was registered.

new laboratories

The Appellant-Defendants did not use their trademark for several years. The Apex Court was of the view that the Appellant-Defendants’ reluctance in protecting their trademark was “legally lethargic” and insinuates that they had abandoned their trademark at some point during the period of 12 years between 1992 to 2004. The legislative intent behind section 47 is to prevent hoarding of trademarks in case of non-utilisation. The applicant of a trademark does not have a permanent right over their trademark. Such a right is lost if it is not exercised within a reasonable time.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also analysed Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and emphasized on the importance of the “first user” rule. Section 34 states that the proprietor or the registered user of a trademark cannot restrain the use by another party having an identical or deceptively similar mark if:

The use of their trademark commenced prior to that of the proprietor or the registered user or,

The date of registration of their trademark is prior to the date of registration of the proprietor’s or the registered user’s trademark.

The Apex Court expressed that since the Appellant-Defendants had filed an application for registration of their trademark ‘ROFOL’ in the year 1992, much before the user of the Respondent-Plaintiffs commenced, they had the opportunity of restraining the Respondent-Plaintiffs from using a similar mark but no action whatsoever was taken by the Appellant-Defendants in initiating any litigation against the Respondent-Plaintiffs or placing their own products in the market.

The Apex Court relied on the cases of N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. (1996) and Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc. (2004) wherein the Apex Court had granted an interim injunction in favour of the prior user. The Apex Court also placed reliance on the judgment of S. Syed Mohiden v. P. Sulochana Bai (2016) wherein it was held that the rights of a prior user will take precedence over the rights of a subsequent user even if they have received registration of their trademark.

The Apex Court then deliberated on the question as to whether the prior user of the trademark would mean prior to the date of application or prior to the user by Appellant-Defendants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reached a conclusion that since the Respondent-Plaintiffs have been using their trademark long before the user by Appellant-Defendants, a prima facie case lies in their favour. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Respondent-Plaintiffs and an irreparable loss or damage will be caused to them if the injunction is denied.

The Apex Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and held that the Respondent-Plaintiffs are entitled to temporary injunction.

Author: Sonakshi Pandey, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010